Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

Genesis RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 10/20/2005 12:17:03 PM

India´s Bid for a Permanent Seat on the UN Security Council by: Mukesh Advani -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are compelling reasons to consider India?s appointment as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (the ?Council.?) At the present time, the Council does not fully represent the world population, such as developing countries, and anachronistic in character. The impact of actions of the Council is felt, with near total exclusivity by developing countries. Yet they have little influence in its decision-making. This is so despite the fact that more than 150 countries endorsed, at the millennium summit, the need for a reformed council that was more representative. This has in the past and continues to hinder the Council?s ability to tackle threats to international peace and security. In 1965, the membership of the Council was expanded from 11 to 15. There was no change in the number of permanent members. Since then, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of Member States of the UN and considerable change in composition of the General Assembly, where overwhelming majority of members are developing countries. The present composition of the Council, particularly the permanent members´ category, is weighted heavily in favor of industrialized countries. This imbalance must be redressed in an expansion of the Council, by enhancing the representation of developing countries. While Britain, France, Russia and many other countries fully support India?s admission to the Council as a permanent member, the U.S. has not yet endorsed India?s request (President Clinton during his visit to India as President indicated that the U.S. would seriously considers supporting India?s claim). There is no question that the support of the U.S. would be necessary for India?s admission as a permanent member. Since India has a very strong case for admission as a permanent member, the lack of support from the U.S. thus far is puzzling at best. India is well qualified by any objective criteria for permanent membership of the Council. Some of the reasons the U.S. should whole-heartedly to support appointment of Indian as a permanent member include: India has more than a billion people, representing about one sixth the population of the whole world, and it is the largest functional and stable democracy in the world. It is a model for the third and post communist worlds. India?s gross domestic product is the 4th highest in the world. It is one of the fastest growing economies in the world as a result of liberalization of trade policies in the last decade. India, with its ancient civilization, rich heritage, deep rooted democratic system and growing economic potential has the credentials to champion the cause of the developing nations which need proper representation in the Council. India had been one of the few countries, which had participated, in all the military operations the Council had undertaken thus far. Presently, India is ranked as the second largest troop contributor to the UN. It shows strong commitment to the UN Charter, international leadership and contribution to the world peace. India had been the bulwark of the Non-Alignment Movement during the cold war years and continues to be a major force in that sphere. India is and will be a major player of the world in helping the UN?s efforts to eliminate nuclear arms from the face of earth. India has a vast pool of Technicians and Scientists. This could make India a frontier country as the world move more and more towards information age. India is one of the few countries which have made huge strides in the Space technologies. India is strategically situated in the Asian continent. The twenty-first century is expected to be a century of Asians. India could emerge as a buffer for market for other countries against the Chinese, if China decides to assert its influence in future as many fear that it would. Indian army is considered one of the most disciplined army in the world. This will become important to the United Nations and Security Council, as it will be called upon to play a major in role in resolving future conflicts. India had always been looked upon by the third world to provide a moral leadership in voicing its views. India could emerge as a model for other countries in establishing a secular order. Further, this could act as model in handling diversity in religion, race, caste, language and culture. India can help the UN to work towards the problems of poverty, illiteracy, urban sprawl, natural calamities etc. India being the sufferers of these evils can contribute a great towards formulating a workable approach at the UN on these issues. In summary, the Council?s expansion is essential to make it more representative. The fact of India with over a billion population, representing about one sixth the populatio

Quote Reply

PeregrinePike RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 11/10/2005 9:14:40 AM

I have to eat my own words I suppose... ... have seen some of the antics by current members, I really dont think thngs can get any worse. On the other hand it might even get across the message to some of the jokers out there.

Quote Reply

f'alcie Comical haha :P 6/1/2011 9:18:03 PM

It's quite funny swami, that you would want to give permanent seats to India without the veto power which btw the very core power of being a member of the big 5 is all about. Without the veto power it's tokenistic and pathetic to have merely Indian representation in SC without any tooth at all when it comes to meetings. What I think is that SC should remain as is if not abolished. :D because granting India a permanent seat sets a precedent that anyone can become a member because they have a high GDP or economy or whatever you THINK qualifies India for a seat. What happens is that SC becomes disempowered because your setting a stage for SC becoming a General Assembly which conventional knowledge knows that is becoming quite problematic and tokenistic nowadays. i.e. meetings that lasts for ages since countries can't seem to agree on a given policy. :D

Quote Reply

1 2